The (NFL) All Bust Team

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.

Quick

Active member
May 6, 2002
6,443
30
48
Yay Area, CA
#61
THats a very blaneted statement, my friend. EVERYONE is human...but we are talking NFL players here, not people like you and i..
I meant that you cant expect someone to not get burnt every now and then.


And he has also played his hole career on shitty teams. The Bills had a similar defense that the 9ers have now: poor..
So there should be a rise in his stats because he is suddenly making more?

THat may be the case. but how does that stack up to being the HIGHEST paid CB in the league, and putting the same numbers as players like Marcus Trufant?.
You wouldnt say that Trufant and Clements are in the same category as each other? Besides the price tag?

THats a given, but this is a CB we are talking about here. Like i said, a CB making that kinda money should be putting up crazy ass numbers (thus my reference to 7 INTS, as just a measuring stick). Just like the Royals expected Gil Meche to be their ace, and he had yet ANOTHER "Gil season"...as they paid over 10 mil a year for him..
He is playing the same he has his whole career. If he was suddenly underacheiving then he would be a bust. He has never had 7 ints in his career.


Key words: not the main LB. He is in a system of LB's that include a two time Pro-bowler that is one of the leagues BEST defense play callers in Tatupu. Peterson also plays OL.B, and is expeced to pass rush, defend the line and drop back in pass coverage. MLB are one of the most important pieces of a defense...see:Willis..
He isnt the main LB so he should be playing better right?
 
May 9, 2002
37,066
16,282
113
#62
I meant that you cant expect someone to not get burnt every now and then.
I understand.


So there should be a rise in his stats because he is suddenly making more?
In theory...yes. Its more of the fact that SF OVERPAID for him...plain & simple. I guess I dont know what SF was thinking when they decided to dish out 80 mil to a guy who is worth maybe half that.

You wouldnt say that Trufant and Clements are in the same category as each other? Besides the price tag?
Thats my point. Trufant is making significantly LESS than Clements is, and putting up SIMILAR numbers.

He is playing the same he has his whole career. If he was suddenly underacheiving then he would be a bust. He has never had 7 ints in his career.
I think bust is a strong word. OVERPAID is the corrst term here. But, becuase he WAS overpaid, he APPEARS to be a bust in that sense...that is what the writter is referring to.


He isnt the main LB so he should be playing better right?
Depend on what you mean by "better".

Why are you guys so mad at this anyway? Sicne when do proffesional sports writers get ANY credit for being "knowledgable"? All I ever see here is people mocking ESPN's analysts and every other analyst out there...why all of a sudden does this seem sush a huge deal? Its an OPINION. If YOU, as a 9er fan, are HAPPY with his performance, that what difference does it make?
 

Quick

Active member
May 6, 2002
6,443
30
48
Yay Area, CA
#66
In theory...yes. Its more of the fact that SF OVERPAID for him...plain & simple. I guess I dont know what SF was thinking when they decided to dish out 80 mil to a guy who is worth maybe half that.
Yes, they overpaid. When you are in the bottom half of the teams in the NFL, teams have to overpay. The deal isnt 80 million because he wont see the last 2 years of the contract. He worth more then half tho.


Thats my point. Trufant is making significantly LESS than Clements is, and putting up SIMILAR numbers.?
He is making less because he is on his rookie contract. Clements wasnt making this much until after he got out of his rookie contract. He is going to get paid big time this offseason.


I think bust is a strong word. OVERPAID is the corrst term here. But, becuase he WAS overpaid, he APPEARS to be a bust in that sense...that is what the writter is referring to.?
Overpaid, yes. Unless he is the best CB in the league, then he would be underpaid. For him to be a bust would to be underacheiving and not playing how he has his whole career. I agree that bust isnt the right word.


Depend on what you mean by "better".?
Playing better then he did in SF.

Why are you guys so mad at this anyway? Sicne when do proffesional sports writers get ANY credit for being "knowledgable"? All I ever see here is people mocking ESPN's analysts and every other analyst out there...why all of a sudden does this seem sush a huge deal? Its an OPINION. If YOU, as a 9er fan, are HAPPY with his performance, that what difference does it make?
No one is mad. Im just defending what I think. I dont think that Clements is a bust, so Im going to express that. You didnt think Peterson was overpaid, so you expressed that. It doesnt mean that you was mad.
 

Rich

Sicc OG
Jul 22, 2003
6,700
0
0
43
#67
This list is stupid. I don't see how Sapp, Clements and many others be on that list. Sapp is almost at the end of his career so I don't see how he should be putting up great #s. The 9ers don't even have a fucking official GM; the jackass who holds that position right now is the headcoach Nolan. Even Julius Peppers. Any team would love to have him even if he's having an off year, but then again that whole team is.
 

CZAR

Sicc OG
Aug 25, 2003
7,269
1,375
0
51
#70
Yo fuckyourmommaintheass they aint gonna feel u on this cause they are niner fans!! I do finally agree with u and think he is highly overpaid! He aint a bust but he should not be the highest paid defensive player ever!!! Come on now!! But like u said if they are happy with it then thats on them cause he aint on my squad!!! Got Em!!!!
 
Apr 25, 2002
9,595
5
38
#72
I have watched niners games and I've seen clements make mistakes and get burned quite a few times. With that being said his play does not indicate that he is one of the top corners in the league, he's pretty good but he's not pro bowl caliber in my opinion.
Every corner makes mistakes. Even the great Champ Bailey has given up some TDs and other significant receptions. I can count the number of plays Nate Clements has been "burned" on with one hand (I've kept track).

My point is this: Nate Clements was brought in to make our secondary better. He has done that. He makes GREAT tackles that most CBs in the league would not make. He helps take away the opposition's main threat and QBs don't test him too often. Look what happened with Arizona, those receivers have torched the shit out of us for years. They were held in check this season and Nate is the main reason for that.

It's easy to look at the bad shit and overlook the good shit. Last year we were getting torched all the time. This year, when we do get torched, it's not by Nate Clements' guy.

Point blank: Nate CLements is doing exactly what he was brought here to do. The only reason he is on that list is because of his contract, that's it. Not good enough for me.